Changes

2.  Lenski incorrectly included generations of the ''E. coli'' already known to contain Cit⁺ variants in his experiments.<ref>Lenski incorrectly included generations 31,500, 32,000 and 32,500.</ref>  Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Lenski's hypothesis.

2.  Lenski incorrectly included generations of the ''E. coli'' already known to contain Cit⁺ variants in his experiments.<ref>Lenski incorrectly included generations 31,500, 32,000 and 32,500.</ref>  Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Lenski's hypothesis.

3.  Lenski's largest experiment failed to support his hypothesis with statistical significance.  Even though this largest experiment was nearly ten times the size of his other experiments, Lenski did not weigh this largest experiment correctly in combining his results.

3.  Lenski's largest experiment failed to support his hypothesis with statistical significance.  Even though this largest experiment was nearly ten times the size of his other experiments, Lenski did not weight this largest experiment correctly in combining his results.

4.  Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment failed to confirm his hypothesis with statistical significance, even with the incorrect inclusion of the Cit⁺ variant generations.  Instead, his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.  Other works published in PNAS are clear in defining statistical significance in the traditional way, which Lenski's third experiment (even with incorrect inclusion of the above-referenced generations) failed to satisfy.<ref>See, e.g., www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701990104</ref>  Lenski's largest experiment was nearly ten times as large as his other two experiments.

4.  Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment failed to confirm his hypothesis with statistical significance, even with the incorrect inclusion of the Cit⁺ variant generations.  Instead, his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.  Other works published in PNAS are clear in defining statistical significance in the traditional way, which Lenski's third experiment (even with incorrect inclusion of the above-referenced generations) failed to satisfy.<ref>See, e.g., www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701990104</ref>  Lenski's largest experiment was nearly ten times as large as his other two experiments.